Re: Event Updated: RDF-star WG - minutes of previous meetings

> On Mar 3, 2023, at 03:41 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 02/03/2023 17:11, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/2/23 10:55, Gregg Kellogg wrote: 
>>> On Mar 2, 2023, at 3:10 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> <mailto:pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>> [...] 
>> 
>>>> Peter, as you volunteered ;) you could simply download the HTML files, edit them locally, and I will reflect the changes on the W3C server. 
>>> 
>>> Maybe some feedback to the system team to improve the experience? If the raw log were in a Git repo that could be exposed, it would make submitting edit requests much easier, and the. It could rebuild the HTML automatically. 
>>> 
>>> Gregg 
>> 
>> 
>> Indeed. 
>> 
>> There really should be an editing phase where the scribe edits the raw log so that the actual minutes better reflect reality.  This used to be the case, and I seem to remember that the scribe could even edit the minutes afterwards if there were any problems raised by WG members.  As well, the initial minutes were sent out to the WG shortly after the meeting so that WG members were reminded to look them over and suggest changes. 
> What I am aware of is the ability to "patch" the minutes using the vi/sed-like substitution on IRC "s/old text/new text/". I usually try to do that right after the call when I spot mistakes/typos in the script, then ask RRSAgent to generate the minutes again. This does not require team privilege, anyone can do this.
> 
> However, I don't know of any method to use RRSAgent to change and regenerate the minutes post-hoc (i.e., after the end of the day or once RRSAgent has left the IRC channel)... This is where I resort to patching the files directly on the server.
> 

It's sub-optimal, and only works until the calendar flips for the
bots (I *think* they're in the Eastern Time Zone, but don't know
whether they observe Daylight Saving Time), but it *is* possible
to `/invite RRSAgent` after the initial closure of the meeting.

The IRC log goes to the same file, and additional `s///` or `s|||`
(the latter can be used to avoid escaping in content which includes 
`/` chars) commands, as well as some (all?) of the basic `chair:`, 
`regrets+`, `present+`, and related may be added at this point.

`RRSAgent, draft minutes` may be used multiple times, until the
output is (mostly) satisfactory. (I've discovered, during the
last call, that `s/Agenda://` does not have the desired effect
of removing the `Agenda:` without an agenda, but the line that
*did* have the agenda URL had already been processed by Zakim
and Agendabot, so this was not a huge problem.)

(Can you tell I've done this a bunch of times in the past?)

> To the question of modifying the IRC log (and regenerate the HTML) vs. modifying the HTML directly: I have mixed feelings. In my view, the IRC log is just that, a log of what happened. The HTML minutes, on the other hand, are an edited document. So I slightly prefer to make the changes on the HTML version. But I can live with both.
> 
Given the existing ability to patch via `s///`, it doesn't seem
to be that the IRC "logs" should be considered sacrosanct, and it
seems likely that (especially larger) corrections are better done
there, than in the HTML.

Ivan does a fair bit of cleanup on minutes for other meetings. He
might have some tips and tricks for us, which might be worth his
time to throw into a doc for a broader audience, as he progresses
toward full retirement.

> Note that the raw IRC logs *are* available to anyone: there is a link at the top right of the minutes. When you click on it, you get an HTML rendering of the IRC log, but you can get the plain-text version by adding ".txt" at the end (or by using HTTP conneg).
> 

Neat trick! I was unaware of the filename edit to get `text/plain`,
here.


>> I appreciate that the current process may require less manual intervention, but it seems like the current process results in less-useful minutes. 
> I agree, and I am willing to change the process if the group feels there is added value in it.
>> 
>> peter 

Ted